Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™
You haven’t answered 1 question. The reliability of the results
has decreased. You may click your
browser’s "Back" button to answer the remaining questions.
Your Type
ISTJ
Introvert(31%) Sensing(7%) Thinking(6%) Judging(16%)
You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion
(31%)
You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (7%)
You have slight preference of Thinking over Feeling (6%)
You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (16% )
How Do You Want to Leverage The Type?
Self-development
ISTJ Type Description
ISTJs are often called "inspectors". They have a keen sense of
right
and wrong, especially in their area of interest...
Read full description »
ISTJ Careers
Career choices for your type
Communication skills
Learning style

Famous ISTJs
Click to view »
Business use
Staff Development & Teamwork
Use advanced Jungian typology to improve collaboration,
become
better leader, and manage conflicts.
Learn how »
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/istj
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/istj-careers?EI=-
31&SN=7&TF=6&JP=16
31&SN=7&TF=6&JP=16
31&SN=7&TF=6&JP=16
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/istj-communication-
style
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/istj-learning-style
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/famous-istjs
31&SN=7&TF=6&JP=16
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/staff-development
Pre-employment Testing
Identify candidate's strengths, conduct effective interviews and

assess
compatibility.
Learn how »
Those who took this test also took these tests:
Jung Marriage Test™
Write down your and your partner's personality type letters and
percentages shown above and check
your compatibility .
Use this result as input to the Marriage Test now:
Use as Partner A » Use as Partner B »
Risk Attitudes Profiler™
Why troubles stick to you? Can you take control of your
fortune? Leverage your risk type for success.
Entrepreneur Quiz™
Find the most favorable for you businesses and franchises with
Entrepreneur Quiz™.
Role Model Quiz™
Intentionally or unconsciously, we try to follow our role
model's behavior, although often our behavioral
traits do not match very well those of our role model. Find
which celebrities have personalities that are
similar to yours.
Get access to all of these tests at a discounted price - Click
Here
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/pre-employment-
testing
testing
testing

testing
http://www.humanmetrics.com/relationship-match-test
http://www.humanmetrics.com/risk-taking
http://www.humanmetrics.com/risk-taking/about-risk-attitudes
http://www.humanmetrics.com/entrepreneur
http://www.humanmetrics.com/role-model
http://www.humanmetrics.com/role-model
http://www.humanmetrics.com/testidpp.asp?testid=ALL
ITS-632 Intro to Data Mining
Dr. Steven Case
Dept. of Information Technology &
School of Computer and Information Sciences
University of the Cumberlands
Chapter 2 Assignment
1. What's an attribute? What's a data instance?
2. What's noise? How can noise be reduced in a dataset?
3. Define outlier. Describe 2 different approaches to detect
outliers in a dataset.
4. Describe 3 different techniques to deal with missing values in
a dataset. Explain when each of these techniques would be most
appropriate.
5. Given a sample dataset with missing values, apply an
appropriate technique to deal with them.

6. Give 2 examples in which aggregation is useful.
7. Given a sample dataset, apply aggregation of data values.
8. What's sampling?
9. What's simple random sampling? Is it possible to sample data
instances using a distribution different from the uniform
distribution? If so, give an example of a probability distribution
of the data instances that is different from uniform (i.e., equal
probability).
10. What's stratified sampling?
11. What's "the curse of dimensionality"?
12. Provide a brief description of what Principal Components
Analysis (PCA) does. [Hint: See Appendix A and your lecture
notes.] State what's the input and what the output of PCA is.
13. What's the difference between dimensionality reduction and
feature selection?
14. Describe in detail 2 different techniques for feature
selection.
15. Given a sample dataset (represented by a set of attributes, a
correlation matrix, a co-variance matrix, ...), apply feature
selection techniques to select the best attributes to keep (or
equivalently, the best attributes to remove).
16. What's the difference between feature selection and feature
extraction?
17. Give two examples of data in which feature extraction
would be useful.

18. Given a sample dataset, apply feature extraction.
19. What's data discretization and when is it needed?
20. What's the difference between supervised and unsupervised
discretization?
21. Given a sample dataset, apply unsupervised (e.g., equal
width, equal frequency) discretization, or supervised
discretization (e.g., using entropy).
22. Describe 2 approaches to handle nominal attributes with too
many values.
23. Given a dataset, apply variable transformation: Either a
simple given function, normalization, or standardization.
24. Definition of Correlation and Covariance, and how to use
them in data pre-processing (see pp. 76-78).
ITS-632 Intro to Data Mining
Dr. Steven Case
Dept. of Information Technology &
School of Computer and Information Sciences
University of the Cumberlands
Chapter 3 Assignment
[Your Name Here]

1. Obtain one of the data sets available at the UCI Machine
Learning Repository and apply as many of the different
visualization techniques described in the chapter as possible.
The bibliographic notes and book Web site provide pointers to
visualization software.
2. Identify at least two advantages and two disadvantages of
using color to visually represent information.
3. What are the arrangement issues that arise with respect
to three-dimensional plots?
4. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using sampling
to reduce the number of data objects that need to be displayed.
Would simple random sampling (without replacement) be a
good approach to sampling? Why or why not?
5. Describe how you would create visualizations to display
information that de-scribes the following types of systems.
a) Computer networks. Be sure to include both the static aspects
of the network, such as connectivity, and the dynamic aspects,
such as traffic.
b) The distribution of specific plant and animal species around
the world fora specific moment in time.
c) The use of computer resources, such as processor time, main
memory, and disk, for a set of benchmark database programs.
d) The change in occupation of workers in a particular country
over the last thirty years. Assume that you have yearly
information about each person that also includes gender and
level of education.
Be sure to address the following issues:
· Representation. How will you map objects, attributes, and
relation-ships to visual elements?
· Arrangement. Are there any special considerations that need to
be taken into account with respect to how visual elements are
displayed? Specific examples might be the choice of viewpoint,

the use of transparency, or the separation of certain groups of
objects.
· Selection. How will you handle a large number of attributes
and data objects
6. Describe one advantage and one disadvantage of a stem and
leaf plot with respect to a standard histogram.
7. How might you address the problem that a histogram depends
on the number and location of the bins?
8. Describe how a box plot can give information about whether
the value of an attribute is symmetrically distributed. What can
you say about the symmetry of the distributions of the attributes
shown in Figure 3.11?
9. Compare sepal length, sepal width, petal length, and petal
width, using Figure3.12.
10. Comment on the use of a box plot to explore a data set with
four attributes: age, weight, height, and income.
11. Give a possible explanation as to why most of the values of
petal length and width fall in the buckets along the diagonal in
Figure 3.9.
12. Use Figures 3.14 and 3.15 to identify a characteristic shared
by the petal width and petal length attributes.

13. Simple line plots, such as that displayed in Figure 2.12 on
page 56, which shows two time series, can be used to
eff ectively display high-dimensional data. For example, in
Figure 2.12 it is easy to tell that the frequencies of the two time
series are diff erent. What characteristic of time series allows
the eff ective visualization of high-dimensional data?
14. Describe the types of situations that produce sparse or dense
data cubes. Illustrate with examples other than those used in the
book.
15. How might you extend the notion of multidimensional data
analysis so that the target variable is a qualitative variable? In
other words, what sorts of summary statistics or data
visualizations would be of interest?
16. Construct a data cube from Table 3.14. Is this a dense or
sparse data cube? If it is sparse, identify the cells that are
empty.
17. Discuss the diff erences between dimensionality reduction
based on aggregation and dimensionality reduction based on
techniques such as PCA and SVD.
http://www.cambridge.org/9780521862189
This page intentionally left blank

The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
Personality psychology is a rapidly maturing science making
important
advances on both conceptual and methodological fronts. The
Cambridge
Handbook of Personality Psychology offers a one-stop source
for the most
up-to-date scientific personality psychology. It provides a
summary of
cutting-edge personality research in all its forms, from DNA to
political
influences on its development, expression, pathology and
applications. The
chapters are informative, lively, stimulating and, sometimes,
controversial
and the team of international authors, led by two esteemed
editors, ensures a
truly wide range of theoretical perspectives. Each research area
is discussed
in terms of scientific foundations, main theories and findings,
and future
directions for research. With useful descriptions of
technological approaches
(for example, molecular genetics and functional neuroimaging)
the
Handbook is an invaluable aid to understanding the central role
played by
personality in psychology and will appeal to students of
occupational, health,
clinical, cognitive and forensic psychology.
PHILIP J. CO RR is Professor of Psychology at the University
of East Anglia.

GERALD MATTHEWS is Professor of Psychology at the
University of
Cincinnati.
The Cambridge Handbook of
Personality Psychology
Edited by
Philip J. Corr
and
Gerald Matthews
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,
Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
First published in print format
ISBN-13 978-0-521-86218-9
ISBN-13 978-0-521-68051-6

ISBN-13 978-0-511-59614-8
© Cambridge University Press 2009
2009
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521862189
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the
provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no
reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge
University Press.
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the
persistence or accuracy
of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in
this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or
will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge
University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Paperback

eBook (NetLibrary)
Hardback
http://www.cambridge.org/9780521862189
http://www.cambridge.org
Contents
List of Figures page ix
List of Tables xiii
List of Contributors xv
List of Abbreviations xviii
Preface xxi
Editors’ general introduction xxii
Editors’ introduction to Parts I to VIII xliii
Part I. Foundation Issues 1
1. Conceptual issues in personality theory
SUSAN CLONINGER 3
2. Personality psychology of situations
SETH A. WAGERMAN AND DAVID C. FUNDER 27
3. Personality: traits and situations
JENS B. ASENDORPF 43
4. Personality and emotion
RAINER REISENZEIN AND HANNELORE WEBER 54

5. The characterization of persons: some fundamental
conceptual issues
JAMES T. LAMIELL 72
Part II. Personality Description and Measurement 87
6. The trait approach to personality
IAN J. DEARY 89
7. Methods of personality assessment
GREGORY J. BOYLE AND EDWARD HELMES 110
8. Structural models of personality
BOELE DE RAAD 127
v
9. The Five-Factor Model of personality traits: consensus and
controversy
ROBERT R. M C CRAE 148
10. Personality and intelligence
PHILLIP L. ACKERMAN 162
Part III. Development, Health and Personality Change 175

11. Childhood temperament
MARY K. ROTHBART, BRAD E. SHEESE AND
ELISABETH D. CONRADT 177
12. The development of personality across the lifespan
M. BRENT DONNELLAN AND RICHARD W. ROBINS 191
13 Models of personality and health
MARKO ELOVAINIO AND MIKA KIVIMÄKI 205
14. Attachment theory: I. Motivational, individual-differences
and structural aspects
PHILLIP R. SHAVER AND MARIO MIKULINCER 228
15. Attachment theory: II. Developmental, psychodynamic
and optimal-functioning aspects
MARIO MIKULINCER AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER 247
Part IV. Biological Perspectives 263
16. Evolutionary theories of personality
AURELIO JOSÉ FIGUEREDO, PAUL GLADDEN,
GENEVA VÁSQUEZ, PEDRO SOFIO ABRIL WOLF
AND DANIEL NELSON JONES 265
17. Animal models of personality and cross-species
comparisons

SAMUEL D. GOSLING AND B. AUSTIN HARLEY 275
18. Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA
MARCUS R. MUNAFÒ 287
19. Neuroimaging of personality
TURHAN CANLI 305
20. Personality neuroscience: explaining individual
differences in affect, behaviour and cognition
COLIN G. DEYOUNG AND JEREMY R. GRAY 323
vi Contents
21. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality
PHILIP J. CORR 347
Part V. Cognitive Perspectives 377
22. Semantic and linguistic aspects of personality
GERARD SAUCIER 379
23. Personality and performance: cognitive processes
and models
GERALD MATTHEWS 400

24. Self-regulation and control in personality functioning
CHARLES S. CARVER AND MICHAEL F. SCHEIER 427
25. Self-determination theory: a consideration of human
motivational universals
EDWARD L. DECI AND RICHARD M. RYAN 441
26. Traits and the self: toward an integration
MICHAEL D. ROBINSON AND CONSTANTINE SEDIKIDES
457
27. Personality as a cognitive-affective processing system
RONALD E. SMITH AND YUICHI SHODA 473
Part VI. Social and Cultural Processes 489
28. The storied construction of personality
AVRIL THORNE AND VICKIE NAM 491
29. Personality and social relations
LAURI A. JENSEN-CAMPBELL, JENNIFER M. KNACK
AND MADELINE REX-LEAR 506
30. Personality and social support processes
RHONDA SWICKERT 524
31. Social pain and hurt feelings

GEOFF MACDONALD 541
32. Personality in cross-cultural perspective
JURIS G. DRAGUNS 556
33. Culture and personality
ROBERT HOGAN AND MICHAEL HARRIS BOND 577
34. Personality and politics
GIANVITTORIO CAPRARA AND MICHELE VECCHIONE
589
Contents vii
Part VII. Psychopathology 609
35. Mood and anxiety disorders: the hierarchical structure
of personality and psychopathology
DAVID D. VACHON AND R. MICHAEL BAGBY 611
36. Personality and psychosis
GORDON CLARIDGE 631
37. Diagnosis and assessment of disorders of personality
STEPHANIE N. MULLINS-SWEATT AND THOMAS A.
WIDIGER 649

38. Psychopathy and its measurement
ROBERT D. HARE AND CRAIG S. NEUMANN 660
39. Personality and eating disorders
NATALIE J. LOXTON AND SHARON DAWE 687
40. Personality and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
RAPSON GOMEZ 704
Part VIII. Applied Personality Psychology 717
41. Personality in school psychology
MOSHE ZEIDNER 719
42. Personality in educational psychology
MOSHE ZEIDNER 733
43. Personality at work
GILES ST J. BURCH AND NEIL ANDERSON 748
44. Workplace safety and personality
ALICE F. STUHLMACHER, ANDREA L. BRIGGS AND
DOUGLAS F. CELLAR 764
45. Personality and crime
DAVID CANTER AND DONNA YOUNGS 780

46. Treatment of personality disorders
FIONA WARREN 799
Index 820
viii Contents
Figures
1.1 Theoretical constructs and correspondence rules 15
3.1 Perfect cross-situational consistency of inter-individual
differences
despite strong situational effects on behaviour 47
3.2 Situational profile of two children in verbal aggressiveness
across
five situations 48
5.1 Schematic representation of the traditional framework for
scientific
personality research. Reprinted from J. T. Lamiell 2000. A
periodic
table of personality elements? The ‘Big Five’ and trait
‘psychology’ in critical perspective, Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology 20: 1–24 with permission 73
5.2 Illustrative ‘Big Five’ personality profile based on
interactive
measurements, juxtaposed with previously-derived normative
profile. Reprinted from 2003. Beyond Individual and Group
Differences: Human Individuality, Scientific Psychology, and
William Stern’s Critical Personalism with permission from Sage

Publications 79
6.1 A simplified representation of components of the
personality
system and their interrelations, according to Five-Factor
Theory.
From R. R. McCrae 2004. Human nature and culture: a trait
perspective, Journal of Research in Personality 38: 3–14 103
8.1 Eysenck’s (1970) hierarchical model of Extraversion 136
8.2 Partial models of Extraversion and Agreeableness of De
Raad,
Hendriks and Hofstee (1992) 137
8.3 Hierarchical emergence of factors (De Raad and Barelds
2007) 138
8.4 Circumplex representation of two factor solution (De Raad
and
Barelds 2007) 140
9.1 Gender differences, in T-scores, for adults in the United
States
(self-reports) vs. 50 cultures (observer ratings) on the 30 facets
of
the NEO-PI-R 152
10.1 An example of a hierarchical structure of intellectual
abilities,
derived from information in Carroll (1993) 164
10.2 Personality constructs and their relations. From P. L.
Ackerman
and E. D. Heggestad 1997. Intelligence, personality, and

ix
interests: evidence for overlapping traits, Psychological
Bulletin
121: 219–45. Copyright American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission 166
13.1 Personality factors as modifiers of environmental demands
210
13.2 Personality factors affecting the perception of the
environment 210
13.3 Personality as an independent factor 211
13.4 The transactional model of the core relationship between
personality and health 220
18.1 Incidence of major depression as a function of 5-HTTLPR
genotype
and number of life events. From A. Caspi et al. 2003. Influence
of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in
the
5-HTT gene, Science 301: 386–9. Reprinted with permission
from AAAS 297
18.2 Amygdala activation to fearful faces compared to neutral
stimuli as
a function of 5-HTTLPR genotype. Reprinted from A. R. Hariri
et al. 2002. Serotonin transporter genetic variation and the
response
of the human amygdala, Science 297: 400–3 300
19.1 Amygdala response to emotional faces. Reprinted from T.

H. Canli,
et al. 2002. Amygdala response to happy faces as a function of
Extraversion, Science 296: 2191 307
19.2 Relationship between neuroticism (N) and change of slopes
of
MedPFC activity within blocks of sad facial expressions 314
19.3 Lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) activation to fearful,
relative to
neutral, faces correlated with Agreeableness. Reprinted from
B. W. Haas et al. 2007. Is automatic emotion regulation
associated
with agreeableness? A perspective using a social neuroscience
approach, Psychological Science 18(2): 130–2 315
21.1 The relationship between (a) the real nervous system (Real
NS),
(b) the conceptual nervous system (Conceptual NS), (c)
syndromes/
behaviours related to (d) immediate stimuli/cognitions, and (e)
past
events/genes, providing descriptions in terms of structure,
function
and behaviour 352
21.2 Position in factor space of the fundamental punishment
sensitivity
and reward sensitivity (unbroken lines) and the emergent
surface
expressions of these sensitivities, i.e., Extraversion (E) and
Neuroticism (N) (broken lines) 356
21.3 A schematic representation of the hypothesized
relationship
between (a) FFFS/BIS (punishment sensitivity; PUN) and BAS

(reward sensitivity; REW); (b) their joint effects on reactions to
punishment and reward; and (c) their relations to extraversion
(E)
and neuroticism (N) 357
21.4 The two dimensional defence system 363
x List of Figures
21.5 Categories of emotion and defensive responses derived
from
‘defensive direction’ (i.e., motivation to avoid or approach the
source of danger) and avoidability of the threat (given
constraints of
the environment) 369
23.1 Humphreys and Revelle theory: causal chain 406
23.2 Tri-level explanatory framework for cognitive science 416
23.3 Cognitive-adaptive processes supporting personality traits
421
24.1 Schematic depiction of a feedback loop, the basic unit of
cybernetic
control 428
24.2 Hypothesized approach-related affects as a function of
doing well
versus doing poorly compared to a criterion velocity. Adapted
from
C. S. Carver 2004. Negative affects deriving from the
behavioural
approach system, Emotion 4: 3–22 437

25.1 Representation of the SDT continuum of relative
autonomy,
showing types of motivation, types of regulation, the nature of
perceived causation, and the degree of autonomy or self-
determination for each type of motivation 445
27.1 Illustrative intra-individual, situation-behaviour profiles
for verbal
aggression in relation to five situations in two time samples.
From
Y. Shoda, W. Mischel and J. C. Wright 1994. Intra-individual
stability in the organization and patterning of behaviour:
incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic
analysis
of personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:
678. Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological
Association.
Reprinted with permission 475
27.2 The cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS). From
W. Mischel and Y. Shoda 1995. A cognitive-affective system
theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions,
dynamics, and invariance in personality structure, Psychological
Review 102: 254. Copyright 1995 by the American
Psychological
Association. Adapted with permission 481
34.1 The motivational continuum of basic values 597
35.1 Correlations between subordinate and superordinate factors
from
an integrated hierarchical account of the structure of normal and
abnormal personality. Reproduced from K. E. Markon, R. F.
Krueger and D. Watson 2005. Delineating the structure of
normal

and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 139–57 with
permission 616
35.2 A schematic structural model of the DSM-IV mood and
anxiety
disorders. Reproduced from D. Watson 2005. Rethinking the
mood and anxiety disorders: a quantitative hierarchical model
for
List of Figures xi
DSM-V, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Special Issue:
Toward a
Dimensionally Based Taxonomy of Psychopathology 114: 522–
36
with permission 622
35.3 Best-fitting model for the entire National Co-morbidity
Survey, a
three-factor variant of the two-factor internalizing/externalizing
model. Reproduced from R. F. Krueger 1999. The structure of
common mental disorders, Archives of General Psychiatry 56:
921–6 623
35.4 An integrated representation of major personality markers
of
psychopathology, Watson’s (2005) quantitative hierarchical
model
for DSM-V and Krueger’s (1999) structure of common mental
disorders 624
38.1 Four factor PCL-R item-based model of psychopathy (N =
6929).

Reprinted with permission of Guildford Press from C. S.
Neumann,
R. D. Hare, and J. P. Newman, The super-ordinate nature of the
psychopathy checklist-revised, Journal of Personality Disorders
21: 102–7 670
38.2 Two-factor PCL-R higher-order representation of the four
correlated factors model (N = 6929). From Hare and Neumann
(2008). Reprinted with permission from Annual Reviews. 672
42.1 Different component weights contributing to academic
success in
two hypothetical students 743
44.1 Model of the safety process 774
46.1 The cognitive model of psychopathology. From J. Pretzer
and
A. Beck 1996. A cognitive theory of personality disorders, in
J. F. Lenzenweger (ed.), Major theories of personality disorder.
New York: Guilford Press 807
46.2 Linehan’s biosocial model of borderline personality
disorder 811
xii List of Figures
Tables
1.1 Major perspectives in personality 4
1.2 Milestones in the history of personality 6
3.1 Stability, agreement and coherence of observed and judged

dominance in pre-school children 45
5.1 Illustrative assessments, population norms and standard
scores 76
9.1 Correspondence of facet-level scales for three inventories
156
12.1 Summary of stability and change in the Big Five
personality
domains across the lifespan 196
12.2 Summary of core themes in personality development 200
18.1 Heritability coefficients for personality traits 290
21.1 Relationship between personality trait of ‘defensiveness’
(FFFS/
BIS), difference between actual and perceived defensive
distance,
and the real defensive difference required to elicit defensive
behaviour 365
23.1 Outline cognitive patterning for Extraversion-Introversion
414
23.2 Outline cognitive patterning for anxiety/Neuroticism 415
34.1 Definitions of ten value constructs and sample PVQ items
596
38.1 Items and factors in the Hare PCL-R. Copyright 1991. R.
D. Hare
and Multi-Health Systems, 3770 Victoria Park Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario, M2H 3M6. All rights reserved. Reprinted by
permission. 662

38.2 Items and factors in the Hare PCL: SV. Copyright 1995. R.
D. Hare
permission. 663
38.3 Items and factors in the Hare PCL: YV. Copyright 2003. R.
D. Hare
permission. 664
39.1 Summary of studies investigating sub-groups of eating
disorders
using personality-related measures 693
44.1 Personality variables correlated with workplace safety 765
44.2 Five-Factor Model personality variables correlations with
workplace safety 766
xiii
46.1 Sub-categories of personality disorders in the DSM-IVand
ICD-10
classification systems 800
46.2 Examples of cognitive distortions 806
46.3 Examples of core beliefs, views of self and others typical
of each
personality disorder 809

xiv List of Tables
Contributors
PHILLIP L. ACKERMAN, Georgia Institute of Technology
NEIL ANDERSON, University of Amsterdam
JENS B. ASENDORPF, Humboldt-Universität Berlin
R. MICHAEL BAGBY, University of Toronto
MICHAEL HARRIS BOND, Chinese University of Hong Kong
GREGORY J. BOYLE, Bond University
ANDREA L. BRIGGS, DePaul University
GILES ST J. BURCH, University of Auckland
TURHAN CANLI, Stony Brook University
DAVID CANTER, University of Liverpool
GIANVITTORIO CAPRARA, University of Rome
CHARLES S. CARVER, University of Miami
DOUGLAS F. CELLAR, DePaul University
GORDON CLARIDGE, University of Oxford
SUSAN CLONINGER, The Sage Colleges

ELISABETH D. CONRADT, University of Oregon
PHILIP J. CORR, University of East Anglia
SHARON DAWE, Griffith University
IAN J. DEARY, University of Edinburgh
BOELE DE RAAD, University of Groningen
EDWARD L. DECI, University of Rochester
COLIN G. DEYOUNG, Yale University
M. BRENT DONNELLAN, Michigan State University
JURIS G. DRAGUNS, Pennsylvania State University
xv
MARKO ELOVAINIO, University of Helsinki
AURELIO JOSÉ FIGUEREDO, University of Arizona
DAVID C. FUNDER, University of California, Riverside
PAUL GLADDEN, University of Arizona
RAPSON GOMEZ, University of Tasmania
SAMUEL D. GOSLING, University of Texas at Austin
JEREMY R. GRAY, Yale University

ROBERT D. HARE, University of British Columbia and
Darkstone Research Group
B. AUSTIN HARLEY, University of Texas at Austin
EDWARD HELMES, James Cook University
ROBERT HOGAN, Hogan Assessment System
LAURI A. JENSEN-CAMPBELL, University of Texas at
Arlington
DANIEL NELSON JONES, University of Arizona
MIKA KIVIMÄKI, University of Helsinki
JENNIFER M. KNACK, University of Texas at Arlington
JAMES T. LAMIELL, Georgetown University
NATALIE J. LOXTON, University of Queensland
GEOFF MACDONALD, University of Toronto
GERALD MATTHEWS, University of Cincinnati
ROBERT R. MCCRAE, National Institute on Aging
MARIO MIKULINCER, Bar-Ilan University
STEPHANIE N. MULLINS-SWEATT, University of Kentucky
MARCUS R. MUNAFÒ, University of Bristol
VICKIE NAM, University of California, Santa Cruz

CRAIG S. NEWMANN, University of North Texas
RAINER REISENZEIN, University of Greifswald
MADELINE REX-LEAR, University of Texas at Arlington
RICHARD W. ROBINS, University of California, Davis
MICHAEL D. ROBINSON, North Dakota State University
MARY K. ROTHBART, University of Oregon
xvi List of Contributors
RICHARD M. RYAN, University of Rochester
GERARD SAUCIER, University of Oregon
MICHAEL F. SCHEIER, Carnegie Mellon University
CONSTANTINE SEDIKIDES, University of Southampton
PHILLIP R. SHAVER, University of California, Davis
BRAD E. SHEESE, University of Oregon
YUICHI SHODA, University of Washington
RONALD E. SMITH, University of Washington
ALICE F. STUHLMACHER, DePaul University
RHONDA SWICKERT, College of Charleston

AVRIL THORNE, University of California, Santa Cruz
DAVID D. VACHON, University of Toronto
GENEVA VÁSQUEZ, University of Arizona
MICHELE VECCHIONE, University of Rome
SETH A. WAGERMAN, University of California, Riverside
FIONA WARREN, University of Surrey
HANNELORE WEBER, University of Greifswald
THOMAS A. WIDIGER, University of Kentucky
PEDRO SOFIO ABRIL WOLF, University of Arizona
DONNA YOUNGS, University of Liverpool
MOSHE ZEIDNER, University of Haifa
List of Contributors xvii
Abbreviations
A Agreeableness
ACC anterior cingulate cortex
ADHD attention deficit hyperactive disorder
APA American Psychiatric Association
APD antisocial personality disorder
APIM actor-partner independence model
APSD Antisocial Process Screening Device
ARAS ascending reticular activating system

BAS behavioural approach system
BED binge eating disorder
BFI Big Five Inventory
BIS behavioural inhibition system
BPI Basic Personality Inventory
C Conscientiousness
CAPS cognitive-affective processing system
CAQ-sort California Adult Q-sort
CAQ Clinical Analysis Questionnaire
CBT cognitive-behavioural therapy
CD conduct disorder
CFA confirmatory factor analysis
cns conceptual nervous system
CNS central nervous system
CPAI Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory
CPS Child Psychopathy Scale
CR conditioned response
CS conditioned stimulus
DAPP Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology
DBT dialectical behaviour therapy
DIF differential item functioning
DTC democratic therapeutic community
E Extraversion
ECR Experiences in Close Relationships
EFA exploratory factor analysis
EI emotional intelligence
FFM Five-Factor Model
FFFS fight-flight-freeze system
FFS fight-flight system
FHID factored homogeneous item dimension
xviii
fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging

FUPC first unrotated principal component
GAS general adaptation syndrome
HPI Hogan Personality Inventory
HRM human resource management
IAPS International Affective Picture Series
IAS Interpersonal Adjective Scale
ICD International Classification of Diseases
IO industrial/organizational
IRT item response theory
LGM latent growth model
LPFC lateral prefrontal cortex
MBT mentalization-based treatment
MDS multidimensional scaling
MedPFC medial prefrontal cortex
MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
MPQ Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
N Neuroticism
NA negative affectivity
NEO-FFI NEO Five-Factor Inventory
NEO-PI-R Revised NEO Personality Inventory
O Openness to Experience
OCD obsessive-compulsive disorder
ODD oppositional defiant disorder
O-LIFE Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and
Experiences
P Psychoticism
PA positive affectivity
PAI Personality Assessment Inventory
PANAS Positive and Negative Affect Scale
PCL Psychopathy Checklist
PCL–R Psychopathy Checklist–Revised
PD personality disorder
PDNOS personality disorder not otherwise specified
PFC prefrontal cortex
PPI Psychopathy Personality Inventory
QTL quantitative trait loci

ROI regions of interest
ROV regions of variance
RST Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
16PF Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
SDT self-determination theory
SEL social and emotional learning
SEM structural equation modelling
SIT sustained information transfer
SNAP Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality
SPQ Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire
SRL self-regulated learning
List of Abbreviations xix
SRM social relations model
SRP Self-Report Psychopathy
SSSM standard social science model
STM short-term memory
SWB subjective wellbeing
TCI Temperament and Character Inventory
TIE typical intellectual engagement
TMI transmarginal inhibition
UCR unconditioned response
UCS unconditioned stimulus
YPI Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory
xx List of Abbreviations
Preface
The study of personality requires an unusual feat of mental
vision. Those of us

who work in this field must focus narrowly on one or more
specialized research
topics, while simultaneously maintaining a wide-angle view of
personality in a
broader sense. The day-to-day demands of doing research can
make it hard to
preserve the broader focus, especially when immediate research
projects are
progressing well. The aim of this Handbook is to assist
researchers, practitioners
and students to regard the larger picture of personality research.
Recent years have
seen a resurgence of interest in personality, directed along lines
of research that
sometimes converge and sometimes seem to diverge. Our
motivation in compiling
this Handbook was to provide a general overview of the many
areas of study that
together define this branch of psychological science – that many
of us consider to
be becoming increasingly relevant and important in psychology
more generally.
The contributors to this Handbook rose to their task admirably,
producing
relatively brief summaries of their respective areas of expertise
in an accessible
style that are intended to inform and stimulate, and at times
provoke. We
instructed contributors to present their material in a way that
they thought most
appropriate: our concern was to ensure that chapters were
presented in the way
that best suited the topics – as a result, some chapters are longer
than others, and
some topics are divided over several chapters. We offer a

collective ‘thank you’ to
all contributors not only for producing such high-quality
chapters but also for their
forbearance in the production process which, as a result of the
number of chapters,
was slower than anticipated. We can only hope that contributors
are pleased by the
finished Handbook.
We are very grateful to Cambridge University Press for
agreeing to publish this
work; especially to Sarah Caro, Commissioning Editor, for her
constant encourage-
ment and advice, and then, after Sarah’s departure, to Andrew
Peart and Carrie
Cheek for their patience and skill in bringing this project to
fruition. Gerald
Matthews wishes to thank the University of Cincinnati for
allowing a period of
sabbatical leave, and the Japan Society for the Promotion for
Science for supporting
a study visit to the University of Kyushu, which assisted him in
his editorial role.
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
xxi
Editors’ general introduction
Philip J. Corr and Gerald Matthews
Personality psychology has never been in better health than at

the present time.
The idea that we can describe and measure meaningful stable
traits, such as
extraversion and emotionality, is no longer very controversial
(though see James
T. Lamiell, Chapter 5). The study of traits has been boosted by,
at least, a partial
consensus among researchers on the nature of the major traits,
by advances in
genetics and neuroscience, and by increasing integration with
various fields of
mainstream psychology (Matthews, Deary and Whiteman 2003).
Other perspec-
tives on personality have also flourished, stimulated by
advances in social-cognitive
theory (Cervone 2008; Ronald E. Smith and Yuichi Shoda,
Chapter 27), by the
rediscovery of the unconscious and implicit personality
processes (Bargh and
Williams 2006), and by increasing interest in the relationship
between emotion
and personality (Rainer Reisenzein and Hannelore Weber,
Chapter 4). The growing
prominence of personality as an arena for an integrated
understanding of psycho-
logy (Susan Cloninger, Chapter 1) has motivated the present
Handbook. In this
introductory chapter, we provide a brief overview of the main
issues, themes
and research topics that are addressed in more depth by the
contributors to this
volume.
Despite contemporary optimism, the study of personality has
often been con-
tentious and riven by fundamental disputes among researchers.

A persistent issue
is the nature of personality itself: what issues are central to
investigating person-
ality, and which properly belong to other sub-disciplines of
psychology? At times,
it has seemed as though different schools of ‘personality’
research have been
addressing entirely different topics. Until quite recently, there
was little commu-
nication between biologically and socially oriented researchers,
for example.
Debates in the field tended to devolve into rigid dichotomies,
forcing researchers
into one camp or another:
* Is personality a ‘nomothetic’ quality, described by general
principles applying
to all individuals? Or should personality be studied
‘idiographically’, focusing
on the uniqueness of each individual?
* Does behaviour primarily depend on personality, or is it more
powerfully
shaped by situation and context?
* Is personality infused into conscious experience, so that
people can explicitly
describe their own traits? Or, as Freud argued, is much of
personality uncon-
scious, so that people lack insight into their own natures?
xxii
* Is personality primarily a consequence of individual

differences in brain func-
tioning, or of social learning and culture?
* Is personality mainly determined by the individual’s DNA, or
by environmental
factors? (note that this dichotomy is not the same as the
preceding one:
environment affects brain development)
* Is personality fixed and stable throughout adulthood, or does
the person gen-
erally change over time, and perhaps grow into maturity and
wisdom?
The increasing wisdom of the field is suggested by progress in
finding satis-
fying syntheses to these various dialectics, including a
recognition of the impor-
tance of person-situation interaction in shaping behaviour, and
the intertwining of
genes and environment (and brain and culture) in personality
development
(Matthews, Deary and Whiteman 2003). Nonetheless, important
and sometimes
fundamental differences in perspective remain (Caprara and
Cervone 2000).
Many contributors to the present Handbook approach
personality via the resurgent
notion of stable personality traits that exert a wide-ranging
influence on many
areas of psychological functioning. The editors’ own work
aligns with this
perspective. However, it is important to present a historical
perspective on the
controversies within the field, to examine critically the core
assumptions of trait

theory, and to expose some of the fissures that remain within
different versions of
this theory. Part I of this Handbook briefly introduces some of
the basic conceptual
issues that have shaped inquiries into personality.
The historical arc that has seen trait psychology go into and out
of favour
may (most simply) reflect the changing dialectic between
scientific and human-
istic approaches noted by Susan Cloninger (Chapter 1). One can
do personality
research as a ‘hard’ or natural science without subscribing to
universal traits, as
demonstrated by work on ‘behavioural signatures’ (the
individual’s consistencies
in behaviour across different environments: e.g., Shoda 1999).
However, trait
theories have had a lasting appeal through their aspirations
towards a universal
measurement framework (akin to Cartesian mapping of the
Earth or the periodic
table), and their relevance to all branches of personality theory.
Nonetheless, trait
theory does not satisfy those seeking to understand the
individual person, or
the intimacy of the person-situation relationship, or the
humanists that want to
help humankind. Contributors to Part I of this Handbook
address some of the
central issues that define a struggle for the soul of personality
theory. We espe-
cially highlight (1) the psychological meaning of measures of
personality, (2) the
role of personality in predicting behaviour, and (3) the holistic
coherence of

personality.
There are some points of agreement that are close to universal,
at least among
scientifically-oriented researchers. As further explored in Part
II of this Handbook,
personality researchers have a special concern with the meaning
of measurements
of personality (whatever the particular scale or instrument).
Numerical measure-
ments must be anchored by some process of external validation
to reach theoret-
ical understanding. For example, a theory that specifies multiple
brain systems
Editors’ general introduction xxiii
allows us to link the numbers we get from personality scales to
parameters of those
systems (Philip J. Corr, Chapter 21), and to make predictions
about how trait
measurements relate to objective measurements of brain
functioning (e.g., from
functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI). We are right to
be wary of the
factor analysis of questionnaires interpreted without such
theoretical and external
referents.
Another basic concern is the prediction of behaviour (whether at
individual or
group level). We are all interactionists now, in accepting the
importance of both
person and situation factors, but the simple acknowledgement of

interaction does
not take us very far (see Seth A. Wagerman and David C.
Funder, Chapter 2;
Jens B. Asendorpf, Chapter 3). At the least, we need both a
fine-grained under-
standing of how personality factors bias the dynamic interaction
between the
individual and the environment in some given social encounter,
as well as a
longer-focus understanding on how personality and situations
interact develop-
mentally over periods of years, or even decades (see M. Brent
Donnellan and
Richard W. Robins, Chapter 12).
A focus on the general functioning of the person, emerging from
many indi-
vidual components or modules, is a further common theme.
There is a tension
between the idea of a coherent self and several features of
biological science,
including the division of the brain into many functionally
distinct areas (neuro-
science), the determination of brain structure by multiple genes
(molecular gene-
tics), and the evolution of the brain to support multiple adaptive
modules
(evolutionary psychology). Contrasting with these fissile
tendencies, if there is
one issue on which most personality psychologists agree, it is
that the whole is
more than the sum of the parts. Comparable difficulties in
finding personality
coherence also arise in social-cognitive approaches which
discriminate multiple
cognitive, affective and motivational processes underlying

personality (Caprara
and Cervone 2000). Should we see personality as a fundamental
causal attribute of
the brain that, in Jeffrey Gray’s (1981) phrase, becomes a great
flowering tree as it
guides the development of many seemingly disparate
psychological functions? Or
does personality coherence reside in the idiosyncratic schemas
that lend unique
meanings to the lives of individuals (Caprara and Cervone
2000)? Or is person-
ality coherence functional rather than structural in nature,
reflecting the person’s
core goals and strategies for adaptation to the major challenges
of life (Matthews
2008a)? Defining personality in some holistic sense, as opposed
to a collection of
functional biases in independent modules, may be informed by
integration of
personality and emotion research. As discussed by Rainer
Reisenzein and
Hannelore Weber (Chapter 4), the study of emotion has similar
integrative aims.
Trait researchers pursue ‘normal science’ (Kuhn 1962), in that
they share
common core assumptions about the nature of personality.
There is a reasonable
degree of consensus on dimensional models, the importance of
both biology and
social factors, and person x situation interaction. Some
alternative perspectives on
personality, such as those grounded in social constructivism, are
clearly outside
the paradigm. Social-cognitive perspectives appear to be in the
process of

xxiv Editors’ general introduction
negotiating their stance towards trait models. Some aspects of
social-cognitive
research use normative trait-like measures (e.g., self-esteem),
and might be
integrated with the trait paradigm (Michael D. Robinson and
Constantine
Sedikides, Chapter 26). Other aspects that take an idiographic
view of personality
coherence (Caprara and Cervone 2000) may represent an
alternative paradigm.
This volume primarily covers the various expressions and
applications of trait
theory as the dominant paradigm in personality, while
recognizing the important
contributions of social-cognitive models (Ronald E. Smith and
Yuichi Shoda,
Chapter 27) and the idiographic (Auril Thorne and Vickie Nam,
Chapter 28) and
humanistic (Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Chapter 25)
traditions of the
field. The remainder of this introductory chapter briefly
highlights key issues
relating to the focal issues reflected in the section structure of
the book: measure-
ment issues, theoretical stances (biological, cognitive and
social), personality
development, the role of culture, and applications.
Measurement of personality

Measurement issues may be broken down into a series of
interlinked
questions. First, should quantitative measurements be at the
center of personality
research at all? Answers in the negative would come from
psychodynamic
theorists, and from social constructivists (cf., Avril Thorne and
Vickie Nam,
Chapter 28). There are also those who challenge the basic
assumptions of psycho-
metric methods used in personality assessment (James T.
Lamiell, Chapter 5), or
even the validity of any psychological measurement (Barrett
2003). For the most
part, however, personality researchers share the assumption that
scientific tests of
personality theory require quantitative assessments of
personality. Typically, it is
dimensional traits such as extraversion, anxiety and sensation-
seeking which are
assessed, but personality characteristics unique to the individual
may also be
quantified (Ronald E. Smith and Yuichi Shoda, Chapter 27).
Assuming that measurement is desirable, the next question is
what do we
measure? As Ian J. Deary (Chapter 6) points out, Gordon
Allport raised a question
that still awaits an answer: what is the basic unit of personality?
In practice,
various sources of trait data have been used, following
Raymond Cattell’s classi-
fication (see Gregory J. Boyle and Edward Helmes, Chapter 7),
that distinguishes
self-reports (which need not be accepted at face value),
objective behaviours and

life-record data. Questionnaire assessments of traits are
familiar, and need no
introduction. The major structural models of personality such as
the Five-Factor
Model (FFM) (Robert R. McCrae, Chapter 9) are largely based
on questionnaire
scales, although they gain authority from evidence on the
convergence of self-
report with other measurement media, such as the reports of
others on the person-
ality of the individual (Goldberg 1992). Assessment may also be
reconfigured by
the resurgence of interest in the unconscious. Implicit
personality dimensions
distinct from self-report dimensions assessed via behavioural
techniques based on
Editors’ general introduction xxv
speed of response to trait-relevant stimuli are promising,
although psychometric
challenges remain (Schnabel, Banse and Asendorpf 2006).
Having chosen a data source, the next issue for trait researchers
is what specific
analytic techniques should be used to identify and discriminate
multiple dimen-
sions of personality (Gregory J. Boyle and Edward Helmes,
Chapter 7). The
traditional tool here (Cattell 1973) is exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), which
assigns the reliable variance in responses (e.g., on a
questionnaire) to a reduced set
of underlying factors or dimensions. For example, factor

analysis of the various
English-language verbal descriptors of personality suggests that
most of the
variation in response can be attributed to just five underlying
factors that provide
a comprehensive description of personality in this medium
(Goldberg 1990). EFA,
however, is subject to various limitations, including the
existence of an infinite
number of mathematically-equivalent factor solutions (alternate
‘rotations’), dif-
ferent principles for factor extraction, and the lack of any
definitive method for
deciding on the key question of how many factors to extract
(Haig 2005). These
difficulties have been known from the beginning of research
using factor analysis,
and most theorists have advocated using factor analysis only in
conjunction with
other approaches that may provide converging evidence, such as
discriminating
clinical groups and performing experimental investigations
(Eysenck 1967).
As Gregory J. Boyle and Edward Helmes (Chapter 7) discuss,
interest is
growing in ‘modern’ methods for scale construction that
contrast with classical
test theory; these methods include item response theory and
Rasch scaling.
Multivariate methods that complement or replace traditional
EFA have also
become increasingly sophisticated. The single most important
advance may be
the development of confirmatory techniques, which are used to
test whether or not

a factor model specified in advance fits a given data set. Testing
goodness of fit
provides some protection against making too much of the
serendipitous factor
solutions that may emerge from EFA. Confirmatory factor
analysis is itself one
instance of a larger family of structural equation modelling
techniques that allow
detailed causal models to be tested against data (Bentler 1995).
The final set of questions concerns the nature of the
measurement models that
emerge from the application of multivariate statistical methods.
For many years,
debate over the structure of personality revolved around
disputes over the optimal
number of factors for personality description. Famously, Cattell
advocated
sixteen (or more) factors, whereas Eysenck preferred a more
economical three.
The Five-Factor Model represents the most popular resolution
of the debate
(Robert R. McCrae, Chapter 9), although there remain
significant dissenting
voices (e.g., Boyle 2008). In addition, disputes can to some
extent be resolved
within hierarchical, multilevel models that differentiate broad
superfactors such
as the ‘Big Five’, along with more numerous and narrowly
defined ‘primary’
factors (Boele De Raad, Chapter 8).
A more subtle issue is how to discriminate dimensions of
personality from other
domains of individual differences, especially intelligence
(Phillip L. Ackerman,

Chapter 10). The term ‘personality’ is sometimes used in a
wider sense to refer to
xxvi Editors’ general introduction
the full spectrum of personal characteristics, including abilities.
Careful psycho-
metric modelling can help to resolve the boundaries of different
domains within
this broader sphere of individual differences. The new construct
of ‘emotional
intelligence’ is an example of the problems that may arise.
Different versions of
the construct have been proposed that seem variously to belong
in either the ability
or personality domain, or some no man’s land in between
(Matthews, Zeidner and
Roberts 2007).
Developmental processes
Given that we can assess personality descriptively, one of the
next
fundamental issues to consider is personality development. How
do our person-
alities originate? How do they change over time? What
psychological processes
support development? Broadly, two rather different perspectives
have been adop-
ted historically. An essentialist position (see Haslam, Bastian
and Bissett 2004)
supposes that individuals have a rather stable nature, evident
early in childhood,
which is perpetuated, with minor changes, throughout the

lifespan. This position
is compatible with a strong hereditary component to personality
and a view that
biology is destiny. Conversely, in the spirit of J. B. Watson, we
may see person-
ality as accumulating over time through significant learning
experiences. Theories
as various as psychoanalysis, traditional learning theory and
modern social-
cognitive theory have all seen learning as central to personality.
Such approaches
tend to suggest a more malleable view of personality.
Understanding development breaks down into a number of
discrete research
issues, including measurement models for the lifespan,
identifying qualitative
differences between child and adult personality, modelling the
processes that
contribute to development, and linking personality development
to the person’s
broader experience of life and wellbeing. Contributors to this
volume address
some of the key issues involved.
Assessment and continuity of personality in the early years are
often attacked
via studies of temperament. The general idea is that even infants
may show
rudimentary qualities such as emotionality and activity. These
basic ‘tempera-
ments’ may persist into adulthood, for example as positive and
negative emotion-
ality, and also provide a platform for development of more
sophisticated
personality attributes. It is sometimes assumed that

temperament is closer to
biological substrates than adult personality, which is more
strongly influenced
by social-cultural factors (Strelau 2001). Just as with adult
personality, we can
investigate the dimensional structure of temperament, although,
with young
children, the primary data source must be observations of the
child’s behaviour
rather than self-report.
One of the most parsimonious and also most influential models
of temperament
is that proposed by Rothbart and Bates (1998; Mary K. Rothbart
et al., Chapter 11).
Its major dimensions include Surgency/Extraversion (including
activity and
Editors’ general introduction xxvii
sociability), negative affectivity and effortful control, all of
which may be identified
through observational methods. A key question is the extent to
which childhood
temperament shows continuity with adolescent and adult
personality. Do active
children become extraverted adults? Do ‘whiny’ infants become
emotionally unsta-
ble in later life? The consensus on such issues is that
temperament does indeed
predict adult personality, although personality may be somewhat
unstable during the
childhood years. An important line of research constitutes
longitudinal studies that

track temperament, personality and real-life behaviours of
periods of years. For
example, the Dunedin study in New Zealand has tracked around
one thousand
infants into adulthood, and demonstrated that childhood
temperament is modestly
but reliably predictive of adult personality and further criteria
including criminal
behaviour and mental disorder (e.g., Caspi, Harrington, Milne et
al. 2003).
As M. Brent Donnellan and Richard W. Robins (Chapter 12)
discuss, the FFM
has proved a useful framework for investigating both stability
and change in
personality over the lifespan. Factor analytic studies confirm
the convergence of
personality and temperament dimensions (Strelau 2001). We
should note that
factorial convergence does not preclude qualitative changes in
the nature of the
dimension over time.
Coupled with statistical modelling of personality change over
the lifespan is a
concern with the underlying processes driving change and
stability. We prefigure
our later discussion of personality theory by indicating several
avenues towards
understanding development. The grounding of temperament in
biology points
towards the role of neuroscience. There are good
correspondences between the
fundamental dimensions of temperament and some of the key
constructs of bio-
logical theories of personality (Mary K. Rothbart et al., Chapter

11). Importantly,
brain development depends on both genes and environmental
influences, and, as
genes may become active at different ages, genetic influences
may incorporate
personality change. Cognitive and social processes are also
critical for personality
development. Traits such as Extraversion and Neuroticism are
associated
with biases in cognitive functioning that confer, for example, an
aptitude for
acquiring social skills in extraverts, and heightened awareness
of threat in high
neurotic persons (Matthews 2008a). Self-regulative theories
(Charles S. Carver
and Michael F. Scheier, Chapter 24; Michael D. Robinson and
Constantine
Sedikides, Chapter 26) have addressed how cognitive
representations of the self
mediate the individual’s attempts to satisfy personal goals in a
changing external
environment. Furthermore, cognitive development takes place
within a social
context (Bandura 1997) that may powerfully affect personality,
for example, in
relation to exposure to role models, internalization of cultural
norms and educa-
tional experiences (Moshe Zeidner, Chapters 41, 42).
Most researchers accept that neural, cognitive and social
processes interact in
the course of personality development, although building and
validating detailed
models of the developmental process is difficult. Two examples
will suffice. There
is a growing appreciation that research on personality and

health should be placed
in the context of the lifespan (Marko Elovainio and Mika
Kivimäki, Chapter 13).
xxviii Editors’ general introduction
Activities such as smoking and exercise exert their effects over
long intervals.
Whiteman, Deary and Fowkes (2000) suggested that a full
understanding of
personality requires the integration of two models, a structural
weakness model
that focuses on internal vulnerabilities (e.g., genetic
predispositions to illness),
and a psychosocial vulnerability model that focuses on external
factors such as
life/work stress. Cognitive factors such as choosing health-
promoting coping
strategies may play a mediating role.
Similarly, development of emotional competence depends on the
interaction
between biologically-based elements of temperament that confer
emotionality on
the child, and social learning processes, such as modelling of
emotional response.
Individual differences in brain systems for handling reward and
punishment stimuli
(Philip J. Corr, Chapter 21) may govern whether children
develop cheerful or
distress-prone temperaments, respectively. However, the
distress-prone child may
still grow up to be well-adapted if he or she learns effective
strategies from parents

and peers for coping with vulnerability to negative emotion.
Cognitions are also
critical in that language capabilities influence the child’s
capacity to understand and
express emotion. Traits such as emotional intelligence emerge
from this complex and
enigmatic interactional process (Zeidner, Matthews, Roberts and
McCann 2003).
Finally, in this section, we note the resurgence of one of the
grand theories of
personality, John Bowlby’s attachment theory, reviewed in this
volume in two
chapters authored by Phillip R. Shaver and Mario Mikulincer
(Chapters 14, 15).
Bowlby’s insight was that the child’s pattern of relationships
with its primary
care-giver affected adult personality; secure attachment to the
care-giver promoted
healthy adjustment in later life. The theory references many of
the key themes of this
review of personality. Attachment style may be measured by
observation or
questionnaire; a common distinction is between secure, anxious
and avoidant styles
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall 1978). It also corresponds
to standard traits;
for example, secure attachment correlates with Extraversion and
Agreeableness
(Carver 1997). Attachment likely possesses biological aspects
(evident in etholog-
ical studies of primates), social aspects (evident in data on adult
relationships),
and cognitive aspects (evident in studies of the mental
representations supporting
attachment style) (Phillip R. Shaver and Mario Mikulincer,

Chapter 14). As with
other personality theories, a major challenge is developing a
model that integrates
these different facets of the attachment construct.
Theories of personality
Allport (1937) saw personality traits as possessing causal force.
Traits
correspond to ‘generalized neuropsychic structures’ that
modulate the individual’s
understanding of stimuli and choice of adaptive behaviours.
Thus, traits represent
more than some running average of behaviour. For example, we
could see trait
anxiety as simply the integral of a plot of state anxiety over
time, but this
perspective tells us nothing about the underlying roots of
vulnerability to anxiety.
Editors’ general introduction xxix
A theory of the trait is required to understand the causal basis
for stability in
individual differences, and the processes that incline the person
to view stimuli as
threatening, and to engage in defensive and self-protective
behaviours.
One of the hallmarks of personality theory is the diversity of
explanatory
concepts it invokes (Susan Cloninger, Chapter 1). We could
variously attribute
trait anxiety to sensitivity of brain systems controlling response

to threat, to
cognitive processes that direct attention to environmental threat,
or to culture-
bound socialization to see oneself as threat-vulnerable. Three
sections of this
Handbook address three major perspectives that mould
contrasting theories.
According to biological perspectives, personality is a window
on the brain. Hans
Eysenck and Jeffrey Gray articulated the influential view that
individual differ-
ences in simple but critical brain parameters, such as
arousability and sensitivity to
reinforcing stimuli, can drive far-reaching personality changes,
expressed in traits
such as Extraversion and Neuroticism. These theories
emphasized the role of
individual differences in genes for brain development
(polymorphisms) in gen-
erating personality variation (in conjunction with environmental
factors). As a
broad research project, biological theory thus emphasizes
studies of behaviour and
molecular genetics, psychophysiology, and the linkage between
neuroscience and
real-world behavioural functioning, including clinical disorder.
Cognitive and social-psychological theories bring different
issues into the
foreground of research. The essence of cognitive theories is that
personality is
supported by differing representations of the world, and the
person’s place within
it, coupled with individual differences in information-
processing. For example,
Aaron Beck (Beck, Emery and Greenberg 2005) attributed

depression to the
negative content of self-schema, such as beliefs in personal
worthlessness.
Emotional pathology also relates to biases in attention, memory
and strategies
for coping. A major feature of cognitive approaches is the use
of the experi-
mental methods of cognitive psychology to link traits to specific
components of
information-processing. These approaches typically link
cognition to real-life
behaviour and adaptation through self-regulative models that
seek to specify
stable individual differences in the processing supporting goal
attainment
(Charles S. Carver and Michael F. Scheier, Chapter 24).
Social psychological accounts focus on the interplay between
personality and
social relationships (Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell et al., Chapter
29), and several
interlocking issues. These include the extent to which
personality characteristics
(including traits) arise out of social interaction, the reciprocal
influence of person-
ality on social interaction, and the role of culture in modulating
these relation-
ships. Biological and cognitive theories typically conform to a
natural sciences
model, but at least some variants of social psycholo gical theory
owe more to the
idiographic and humanistic traditions of the field discussed by
Susan Cloninger
(Chapter 1). Avigorous research programme that looks back to
the social learning
theories of Walter Mischel and Albert Bandura combines

elements of both
cognitive and social psychology within an idiographic
framework (Caprara and
Cervone 2000; Ronald E. Smith and Yuichi Shoda, Chapter 27).
xxx Editors’ general introduction
In a sense, each research tradition may stand alone. Each has its
own distinct
research agenda and methods supporting a self-contained
domain of scientific
discourse. However, each perspective on theory faces
contemporary challenges
that are a product of previous progress. We will review these
shortly. The more
general point to emphasize is that there is increasing
convergence between different
approaches. Cognitive and social neuroscience approaches are
increasingly infusing
personality research, and it is also clear that core social -
psychological constructs,
such as the self-concept, overlap with trait-based constructs
(Matthews, Deary and
Whiteman 2003). There are still unresolved issues regarding the
extent to which, for
example, cognitive and social accounts of personality may be
reduced to neuro-
science (Matthews 2008b; Corr and McNaughton 2008). It can
be agreed, though,
that there has never been a greater need for proponents of
different research
traditions to talk to one another in the service of theoretical
integration.
Next, we reflect briefly on some of the main challenges for each

theoretical
perspective, which are taken up by contributors to this volume.
Neuroscience
The neuroscience of personality has advanced considerably
from Hans Eysenck’s
(1981) pioneering efforts to advance biological models as a new
Kuhnian para-
digm for the field. Genetic studies, psychophysiology and ‘the
neuroscience of
real life’ have all made major advances. The leading biological
theories, such as
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Philip J. Corr, Chapter 21),
aim to integrate
various strands of evidence in delineating the neuroscience of
personality.
The case of heritability of personality was originally based on
behaviour
genetics, and the finding that the similarity between related
individuals, such as
siblings, related to their degree of genetic similarity (Johnson,
Vernon and Mackie
2008). The attribution of around 50 per cent of the variance in
major personality
traits to heritability is uncontroversial. The field has also
tackled such important
issues as non-additive effects of genes and gene-environment
interaction. Studies
of personality variation within a given population are not,
however, informative
about the mechanisms through which genes build the individual
brains that differ
in the familiar personality traits.

There is currently some excitement about the prospects for
molecular genetics,
i.e., identifying polymorphisms (different variants of the same
gene) that may
produce individual differences in neural functioning and
ultimately observed per-
sonality. Approaches focusing on genes for neurotransmitter
function have had
some success in linking personality to DNA (Marcus R.
Munafò, Chapter 18). The
search is on for ‘endophenotypes’ – highly specific traits that
are shaped by the
genes and influence broader personality traits and vulnerability
to mental illness. At
the same time, the likely complexity of mappings between
genes, brain systems and
behaviour may present a barrier to future progress (Turkheimer
2000).
There is also growing interest in the evolutionary basis for
human neural functio-
ning. Initially, evolutionary psychology was more concerned
with personality in the
sense of ‘how all people are the same’, rather than with
individual differences.
Editors’ general introduction xxxi
Recently, however, researchers (e.g., Penke, Dennisen and
Miller 2007) have begun
to explore how evolutionary genetic mechanisms may produce
variation in traits
across individuals. Aurelio José Figueredo et al. (Chapter 16)

point out that varia-
bility in strategies for managing social relationships, including
sexual relationships,
may be critical for human personality. Furthermore, the
evolutionary perspective
aligns with growing evidence for continuity between animal and
human personality
(or temperament), as Samuel D. Gosling and B. Austin Harley
(Chapter 17) discuss.
Research methodology has also advanced since the heydays of
Hans Eysenck
and Jeffrey Gray. The traditional indices of central and
autonomic arousal remain
important, but contemporary brain-imaging methods offer the
prospect of trans-
forming personality neuroscience. Two chapters in this volume
(Turhan Canli,
Chapter 19; Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, Chapter 20)
review how
methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
establish associa-
tions between personality traits and specific brain areas.
Excitement about such
research has justification. At the same time, much remains to be
done to go
beyond establishing correlations between traits and neurology,
to develop causal
models that explain the correlations. It also remains to be seen
whether the
psychometric models based on questionnaire data will prove
adequate to capture
personality variation seen at the neural level (Ian J. Deary,
Chapter 6).
Cognitive science of personality

For forty years or so, cognitive-psychological research on
personality has traded
quite successfully on the insights and methods of the ‘cognitive
revolution’ of the
1960s. As previously indicated, major themes include the
importance of stable
self-knowledge, studies of information-processing using
objective performance
indices, and the concept of self-regulation as an approach to
handling dynamic
interaction between the person and the outside world. The use
of language in
the assessment of personality also raises important issues
regarding the role
of cognitive representations and semantics (Gerard Saucier,
Chapter 22).
Theoretical landmarks include schema theories of emotional
pathology (Beck,
Emery and Greenberg 2005), information-processing accounts
of anxiety and
impulsivity (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos and Calvo 2007;
Revelle 1993) and
the cybernetics of self-regulation (Carver and Scheier 1998).
As in other realms of personality, these well-established
theories face new
challenges. We will briefly highlight three of these here: the
scope of cognitive
models, the relevance of social psychology, and the
development of causal models
of person-situation interaction. The first issue is whether
cognitive personality
theories can really explain the full range of personality
phenomena. It is something
of a cliché to say that cognitive models suggest a dehumanized,

robot-like
perspective on human functioning (although, arguably, one
based on a misunder-
standing of cognitive science: Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts
2002). By contrast,
investigations of the emotional basis of personality have been a
staple of the field,
addressed from multiple perspectives (Rainer Reisenzein and
Hannelore Weber,
Chapter 4). Recent work on emotional intelligence (Mayer,
Salovey and Caruso
xxxii Editors’ general introduction
2000) suggests that there may be affective elements of
personality that are not
easily reduced to cognitive processes. Positive psychology
emphasizes the gen-
erative role of emotions in signalling peak experiences and
personal fulfilment
(cf., Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Chapter 25).
It is also unclear whether cognitive theories can accommodate
renewed interest
in unconscious processes. Although the classical
psychodynamic theories have
their defenders, most cognitive psychologists see only weak
parallels, at most,
between the Freudian unconscious and the unconscious
information-processing
revealed by experiments on information-processing (Kihlstrom
1999). Of more
interest is that stable traits can be revealed through impli cit
behavioural measures,

whose place in some over-arching dimensional model of
personality remains to be
explored (Schnabel, Banse and Asendorpf 2006).
A second challenge comes from social psychological approaches
that situate
both cognition and personality within social interaction. The
self-schema may be
attributed to generalized self-knowledge relevant to all
individuals (Michael D.
Robinson and Constantine Sedikides, Chapter 26; Wells and
Matthews 1994). We
can assess self-esteem, for example, using standard instruments
– and relate the
measurements to traits such as neuroticism. The contrasting
social-psychological
perspective is that self-related constructs can only be
understood in the context of
social relationships and the cultural milieu (Caprara and
Cervone 2000). Not only
is the self shaped through social interaction, but it is negotiated
via discourse with
others; so that it resides ‘between’ rather than ‘within’ people
(Hampson 1988). A
potentially important compromise between social constructivism
of this kind and
conventional cognitive theory was advanced by Mischel and
Shoda (1995). Social
learning may lead to the development of organized networks of
cognitive-
affective processing units that support the individual’s unique
patterns of inter-
action with the social world (Ronald E. Smith and Yuichi
Shoda, Chapter 27).
The third issue here is the causal role of individual differences
in cognition in

generating personality differences. Information-processing
models typically
establish correlations between traits and multifarious processing
components
(Gerald Matthews, Chapter 23), but it remains unclear whether
processing causes
personality or vice versa. Recent work on anxiety (Wilson,
MacLeod, Mathews
and Rutherford 2006) establishes a causal role for processing:
training participants
to respond to threat stimuli appears to increase anxiety (stress
vulnerability). At
the same time, trait anxiety relates to processing biases and
strategic preferences
that influence cognitions of threat. Self-regulative theories may
be usefully
extended by specifying reciprocal relationships between
personality traits and
specific processing functions that support adaptation to external
social environ-
ments (Matthews 2008a).
Social psychology and personality
Traditional social psychological approaches to personality face
the converse issue
to cognitive theories; that is, much of what has been seen as
uniquely social
about personality may, in fact, be understood in terms of trait
constructs and the
Editors’ general introduction xxxiii

individual’s mental representations. As previously discussed,
many of the core
attributes of the self such as self-esteem and self-efficacy may
be represented as
generalized self-knowledge (Matthews, Schwean, Campbell et
al. 2000; Michael D.
Robinson and Constantine Sedikides, Chapter 26). This
perspective supports
empirical work on the interplay between personality and social
relationships
(Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell et al., Chapter 29) that shows how
various social
processes are biased by traits. For example, highly agreeable
individuals broadly
view others more positively, express higher empathy, and adopt
more helpful and
constructive interaction strategies. An understanding of traits
may similarly
inform research on social support (Rhonda Swickert, Chapter
30) and social
emotions such as the hurt of rejection (Geoff MacDonald,
Chapter 31). As Lauri
A. Jensen-Campbell et al. (Chapter 29) also discuss, effects of
personality on social
functioning must be understood in the broader context of
reciprocal
interaction between personality and social relations across the
lifespan.
Social-psychological research is also increasingly exploring the
wider cultural
context of personality. The traditional argument is that culture
shapes the social
interactions which, in turn, shape the self and personality. This
view continues to
inform cross-cultural studies (see Juris G. Draguns, Chapter 32;

Matsumoto 2007)
that explore how contrasting social values such as individualism
and collectivism
are expressed in personality in cultures such as the United
States and East Asia. At
the same time, the cultural relativism traditionally promoted by
anthropology has
been challenged by the new awareness of universal human
nature supported by
evolutionary psychology and empirical evidence for the
generality of personality
structure. Research is needed on the extent to which ‘universal
personality’
constrains cultural variability in personality (Robert Hogan and
Michael Harris
Bond, Chapter 33).
At the time of writing, the United States is in the midst of a
presidential primary
season that appears highly driven by (perceptions of) the
personalities of the
candidates. The obsession of contemporary Western culture with
celebrities is
also widely acknowledged. Another frontier for social
personality research is to
investigate the role of such personality perceptions in the public
arena. This new
focus on personality builds on earlier research on the influence
of personality on
political attitudes, such as Adorno’s classic work on
authoritarian personality. As
Gianvittorio Caprara and Michele Vecchione (Chapter 34)
discuss, effects of
personality transcend simple right-left divisions, and must be
understood within
a cultural context.

Psychopathology and abnormality
Abnormal personality and its role in mental illness has been a
major
focus of inquiry since Freud’s initial studies of ‘hysteria’
(Eysenck and Eysenck
1985). As with other areas of personality research, research
centres on issues of
conceptualization, measurement and theoretical understanding.
In addition, the
xxxiv Editors’ general introduction
applied goal of improving clinical treatments is never far away.
The conventional
model accepted by psychiatrists is called the diathesis-stressor
model. The ‘dia-
thesis’ refers to an underlying vulnerability to disorder, which
is triggered by an
external stressful event. For example, neurotic personality
seems to constitute a
diathesis for various emotional disorders (David D. Vachon and
R. Michael
Bagby, Chapter 35). The highly neurotic individual may be
especially prone to
develop depression following a personal loss, such as the death
of a loved one.
Understanding the role of personality in mental illness requires
both assessment of
elements of personality that confer vulnerability, and detailed
investigation of how
the various traits of interest play into the processes that
generate pathology.

In regard to assessment, one of the most important
developments of recent years
has been the growing acceptance of dimensional models of
abnormal personality
(Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt and Thomas A. Widiger, Chapter
37; Widiger and
Trull 2007). As with normal personality, it can be shown that
abnormal traits, such
as schizotypy and antisocial personality, exist on a continuum
in the general
population; that is, there is no sharp categorical distinction,
between, for example,
people with and without antisocial personality. Application of
the normal psycho-
metric methods has developed multidimensional models of
abnormality that
correspond well to the variation seen in clinical populations
(Livesley 2007).
This work calls into question the traditional assumption of
clinical psychology
that mental disorders exist in all-or-nothing fashion. If a person
meets a sufficient
number of diagnostic criteria for generalized anxiety, they have
a disorder; if they
meet some but not enough criteria, they are deemed mentally
healthy. The dimen-
sional approach indicates that there are people for whom
anxiety may be problem-
atic but who are not ‘mentally ill’ in the formal sense, and that
people who meet
diagnostic criteria will differ in the severity of illness.
One of the traditional debates in abnormal psychology was the
extent to which
it was something qualitatively distinct from normal variation.

Cattell (1973), for
example, proposed a separate abnormal sphere, whereas
Eysenck (Eysenck and
Eysenck 1985) viewed neurotic and psychotic disorders as the
extremes of the
normal dimensions of neuroticism and psychoticism. For the
most part, psycho-
metric studies have supported the Eysenckian view that
abnormality lies at the
extremes of dimensions evident in the general population,
although we note recent
interest in ‘taxometric’ procedures that may identify
typologically distinct cate-
gories of disorder (Beauchaine 2007). Although the symptoms
of schizophrenia
seem bizarre and unrelated to normal personality, Gordon
Claridge (Chapter 36)
points to the quotidian nature of perceptual distortions, unusual
and creative
thinking, and spiritual experiences. As David D. Vachon and R.
Michael Bagby
(Chapter 35) discuss, abnormal and normal personality
dimensions may be
integrated within common dimensional models. Of course,
instruments specialized
for clinical practice, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory
(MMPI), may be especially useful in context, but the overlap of
normal and
abnormal personality cannot be ignored. It is also common to
break down broad
dimensions, such as psychopathy, into correlated sub-
dimensions referring to
Editors’ general introduction xxxv

interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial symptoms
(Robert D. Hare and
Craig S. Newmann, Chapter 38).
Theories of psychopathology also recapitulate the theoretical
issues previously
described. Gordon Claridge (Chapter 36) argues that, like other
disorders, under-
standing schizophrenia requires investigating interactions
between biological
predispositions, long-term social influences and immediate
environmental trig-
gers. We may add that related issues attach to the personality
change effected by
successful psychotherapy, change which is typically substantial
enough to affect
the person’s scores on personality scales (Barnett and Gotlib
1988). Nevertheless,
treated patients remain vulnerable to further episodes of clinical
illness, and
probably multiple processes contribute to that continuing
vulnerability.
Research on abnormal personality is also driven by social and
cultural con-
cerns. For example, as Natalie J. Loxton and Sharon Dawe
(Chapter 39) discuss,
eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are almost
unknown in some
cultures, but have become increasingly prevalent among
Western women.
Although a biologically-based vulnerability linked to
neuroticism may be identi-
fied, its expression as pathology of eating behaviours is

powerfully shaped by
cultural factors. Similarly, concerns about the educational
attainments of children
have encouraged research on ADHD (Rapson Gomez, Chapter
40) and feed into
wider issues for educational practice (Moshe Zeidner, Chapters
41, 42).
Applications
On the basis that ‘nothing is as practical as a good theory’ we
should
anticipate that the progressing science of personality should
feed into increasing
practical application. The two major traditional applications to
clinical and organ-
izational psychology have both proved somewhat controversial.
The use of
clinical personality questionnaires, such as the MMPI, as an aid
to diagnosis is
well-established. Nevertheless, clinicians may feel that their
own insights into the
case override quantitative personality data. In addition,
projective tests of dubious
validity, such as the Rorschach inkblots, have also been
popular. The second
application is the use of personality scales in occupational
selection, again accom-
panied, at times, by pseudo-scientific procedures, such as
graphology. At different
times, several influential reviews (e.g., Barrick and Mount
1991; Barrick, Mount
and Judge 2001; Guion and Gottier 1965) have called into
question the practical
utility of personality assessments, on the basis of the small
effect sizes for

correlations between personality and occupational performance.
At the present time, there is renewed optimism in the practical
value of person-
ality assessment. Several factors contribute to optimism. First,
the popularity of
the Five-Factor Model provides a standard framework that may
be used to
organize research in a variety of domains (Giles St J. Burch and
Neil Anderson,
Chapter 43; Robert R. McCrae, Chapter 9; Stephanie N.
Mullins-Sweatt and
Thomas A. Widiger, Chapter 37), although not all practitioners
advocate its use
xxxvi Editors’ general introduction
(Hogan and Holland 2003). Secondly, evidence has been
accumulating in favour
of the ‘consequential validity’ of traits; that is, traits predict
meaningful real-world
outcomes. A recent review (Ozer and Benet-Martinez 2006)
identifies a variety of
domains where the Big Five traits are of demonstrable
relevance, including
physical and mental health, quality of social relationships,
occupational choice,
satisfaction and performance, and pro- and antisocial
behaviours in the commu-
nity. Thirdly, in many cases, applied research has moved on
from purely explor-
atory research to theory-driven insights; for example, social-
cognitive theories
of personality provide constructs such as self-concept, self-

efficacy and goal-
setting that are directly relevant to educational interventions
(Moshe Zeidner,
Chapters 41, 42). Fourthly, although the typical dependence of
assessments on
self-report rightly gives practitioners cause for concern,
empirical studies suggest
that the problem of response bias may not be so great as
sometimes supposed
(Hogan, Barrett and Hogan 2007).
Encouraging progress is also being made in each of the various
domains of
assessment of personality assessment. As already mentioned,
the organizational
utility of personality scales was challenged by data showing
only weak relation-
ships between traits and job performance measures. The
problem with some of the
reviews of the field was that they averaged together good and
bad studies, relevant
and irrelevant personality traits, and even positive and negative
correlations
obtained under different contexts. Other reviews (Hogan and
Holland 2003; Tett
and Christiansen 2007) have shown that where organizational
studies are designed
using theory and insight (choosing traits that are relevant to the
job of interest),
associations between traits and performance are moderate but
practically
useful. Traits also predict a host of work-related behaviours in
addition to perform-
ance, including vocational interests, career progression, job
satisfaction, integrity
and counter-productive behaviours such as stealing and using

drugs (Ones,
Viswesvaran and Dilchert 2005; Tokar, Ficher and Subich
1998). There is also
growing understanding of the processes that mediate effects of
personality traits
(Giles St J. Burch and Neil Anderson, Chapter 43), a
development that is likely
further to enhance practical utility. Laboratory research has
long implicated person-
ality in risk-taking (Zuckerman 2007); there is extensive
evidence that traits predict
risk-taking and accident involvement in industrial settings
(Alice F. Stuhlmacher,
Andrea L. Briggs and Douglas F. Cellar, Chapter 44).
We have already described how understanding personality is
essential in
clinical psychology for understanding the etiology and
classification of mental
disorders. Expertise in abnormal personality also helps the
clinician in the prac-
tical business of diagnosis and treatment, in conjunction with
the idiographic case
conceptualization. The growing depth of knowledge in the field
(e.g., Gordon
Claridge, Chapter 36; David D. Vachon and R. Michael Bagby,
Chapter 35) is
such that identification of abnormal traits provides a wealth of
information on the
biological, cognitive and social processes that may underpin
pathology in the
individual, suggesting avenues for therapy. The Five-Factor
Model, through its
accommodation of abnormal traits, provides a comprehensive
aid to diagnosis;

Editors’ general introduction xxxvii
Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt and Thomas A. Widiger (Chapter
37) set out a
systematic diagnostic procedure on this basis. Diagnosis may be
followed by
treatment recommendations that match the client’s personality.
The diversity of
personality processes supports a diversity of therapeutic options
(Fiona Warren,
Chapter 46). Understanding of the client’s personality also
helps the clinician
gauge the likely progress of therapy and the client’s compliance
with instructions
(Harkness and Lilienfeld 1997) – beware the unconscientious
patient!
The third major arena for personality assessment is educational
psychology
(Moshe Zeidner, Chapters 41, 42). The intelligent use of
personality assessment
supports full-spectrum assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of the student
and the matching of the educational environment to student
personality
(Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts 2006). As in clinical
psychology, understanding
personality helps school psychologists to address students with
internalizing and
externalizing problems (Moshe Zeidner, Chapter 41). Growing
research litera-
tures are adding to understanding of common conditions and
disorders, including
test anxiety, ADHD and antisocial behaviour (see Matthews,

Zeidner and Roberts
2007). In line with the aims of the positive psychology
movement, personality
may also require attention in promoting engagement with
learning, prosocial
behaviour and personal development.
Finally, personality research finds increasing application
beyond the organiza-
tional, clinical and educational domains. David Canter and
Donna Youngs
(Chapter 45) evaluate the role of personality in criminal
behaviour; by contrast
with other contributors, they focus more on the narrative
meaning of the crime
for the individual than on trait assessments. Personality is also
important for
diverse fields, including road safety (Matthews 2002; Alice F.
Stuhlmacher et al.,
Chapter 44), military psychology (Bartram 1995), health
psychology (Whiteman,
Deary and Fowkes 2000) and substance abuse (Ball 2004).
There are few, if any,
real-life domains where personality does not play some part in
shaping behaviour.
Conclusion
This chapter has aimed to convey the vigour and diversity of
current
personality research, expressed in its conceptual,
methodological, theoretical and
applied aspects. The scope of the field is such that a single
chapter can do no more
than highlight some of the major research issues – the
contributors to the

Handbook perform the harder work of setting out the various
research programmes
in detail. We hope that the organization of the book will
demonstrate the growing
coherence of personality psychology around a number of major
themes. We have
emphasized work on personality traits as a focus for an
integrated approach to
assessment, theory and practice, but alternative approaches,
such as social-
cognitive theory, may also make a strong case to be viable
paradigms for research.
A persistent theme in this introduction has been the
multilayered nature of person-
ality, expressed in individual differences in neural functioning,
in cognition and
xxxviii Editors’ general introduction
information-processing, and in social relationships. Abnormal
personality too is
expressed at multiple levels. Despite the inevitable difficulties,
a major task for
future research is to develop models of personality that
integrate these different
processes. We believe that the chapters in this Handbook point
the way towards
the objective of adopting a ‘synthetic’ approach to integrating
different levels of
analysis.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. and Wall, S.

1978. Patterns of attachment: a
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: a psychological interpretation.
New York: Holt
Ball, S. A. 2004. Personality traits, disorders, and substance
abuse, in R. Stelmack (ed.),
On the psychobiology of personality: essays in honor of Marvin
Zuckerman,
pp. 203–22. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New
York: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Bargh, J. A. and Williams, L. 2006. The automaticity of social
life, Current Directions in
Psychological Science 15: 1–4
Barnett, P. A. and Gotlib, H. 1988. Psychosocial functioning
and depression: distinguis-
hing among antecedents, concomitants, and consequences,
Psychological
Bulletin 104: 97–126
Barrett, P. 2003. Beyond psychometrics: measurement, non-
quantitative structure, and
applied numerics, Journal of Managerial Psychology 18: 421–39
Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five
personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology 44: 1–26
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. and Judge, T. A. 2001.
Personality and job performance at

the beginning of the new millenium: what do we know and
where do we go
next?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9: 9–
30
Bartram, D. 1995. The predictive validity of the EPI and 16PF
for military training,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68: 219
Beauchaine, T. P. 2007. A brief taxometrics primer, Journal of
Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology 36: 654–76
Beck, A. T., Emery, G. and Greenberg, R. L. 2005. Anxiety
disorders and phobias: a
cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books
Bentler, P. M. 1995. EQS structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software
Boyle, G.J. 2008. Critique of the five-factor model of
personality, in G. J. Boyle,
G. Matthews and D.H. Saklofske (eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and
assessment, vol. I, Personality theories and models, pp. 295–
312. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Caprara, G. V. and Cervone, D. 2000. Personality: determinants,
dynamics, and poten-
tials. Cambridge University Press
Carver, C. S. 1997. Adult attachment and personality:
converging evidence and a new
measure, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: 865–83

Carver, C. S. and Scheier, M. F. 1998. On the self-regulation of
behaviour. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Editors’ general introduction xxxix
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J. W., Theodore, R.
F. and Moffitt, T. E. 2003.
Children’s behavioural styles at age 3 are linked to their adult
personality traits at
age 26, Journal of Personality 71: 495–513
Cattell, R. B. 1973. Personality and mood by questionnaire.
New York: Jossey Bass
Cervone, D. 2008. Explanatory models of personality: social -
cognitive approaches, in
G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews and D. H. Saklofske (eds.), Handbook
of personality
theory and assessment, vol. I, Personality theories and models,
pp. 80–100.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Corr, P. J. and McNaughton, N. 2008. Reinforcement Sensitivity
Theory and personality,
in P. J. Corr (ed.), The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of
personality,
pp. 155–87. Cambridge University Press
Eysenck, H. J. 1967. The biological basis of personality.
Springfield, IL: Thomas
1981. General features of the model, in H. J. Eysenck (ed.), A
model for personality,

pp. 1–37. Berlin: Springer
Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, M. W. 1985. Personality and
individual differences: a natural
science approach. New York: Plenum
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R. and Calvo, M. G.
2007. Anxiety and cognitive
performance: attentional control theory, Emotion 7: 336–53
Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative ‘description of
personality’: the Big-Five factor
structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:
1216–29
1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor
structure, Psychological
Assessment 4: 26–42
Gray, J. A. 1981. A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality,
in H. J. Eysenck (ed.)
A model for personality, pp. 246–76. Berlin: Springer
Guion, R. M. and Gottier, R. F. 1965. Validity of personality
measures in personnel
selection, Personnel Psychology 18: 135–64
Haig, B. D. 2005. Exploratory factor analysis, theory
generation, and scientific method,
Multivariate Behavioural Research 40: 303–29
Hampson, S. E. 1988. The construction of personality, 2nd edn.
London: Routledge
Harkness, A. R. and Lilienfeld, S. O. 1997. Individual
differences science for treatment

planning: personality traits, Psychological Assessment 9: 349–
60
Haslam, N., Bastian, B. and Bissett, M. 2004. Essentialist
beliefs about personality and
their implications, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
30: 1661–73
Hogan, J., Barrett, P. and Hogan, R. 2007. Personality
measurement, faking, and employ-
ment selection, Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1270–85
Hogan, J. and Holland, B. 2003. Using theory to evaluate
personality and job performance
relations, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 100–12
Johnson, A.M., Vernon, P. A. and Feiler, A. R. 2008.
Behavioral genetic studies of personality:
an introduction and review of 50+ years of research, in G. J.
Boyle, G. Matthews
and D.H. Saklofske (eds.), Handbook of personality theory and
assessment, vol. I,
Personality theories and models, pp. 145–73. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Kihlstrom, J. F. 1999. The psychological unconscious, in L. A.
Pervin and O. P. John
(eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research, 2nd edn,
pp. 424–42.
New York: Guilford Press
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions.
University of Chicago Press
Livesley, W. J. 2007. A framework for integrating dimensional
and categorical classifica-

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que

Similar to Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que (19)

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70

More from NarcisaBrandenburg70 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™You haven’t answered 1 que